Bill Rhoden makes me puke

Rhoden is fine when he just tells the story -- granted the subject matter is usually racially pointed.
He becomes grating when he dons those very dark-colored glasses. He rises on the dais and starts the pulpit press. That is tiresome.

 

On a day when both NY Football teams make the playoffs, does William Rhoden write about that? No - too predictable.

What he does write about is the story of Donavan Mcnabb struggling as an African American QB in the NFL.

Once again proving it always comes back to race with Willy.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/sports/football/01rhoden.html?ref=sports

 

Can Boom get an "Amen"? A-MEN!!

I thought the exact same thing. Why talk about the local teams when you can go to bat for poor, underappreciated Donovan McNabb?

Like I've said before, someone needs to make a make not only a Rhoden "random column generator," but also a Rhoden "column topic selector." There are almost zero surprises in either category, ever.

He wrote, what, two columns after the occurrence of the Knicks-Nuggets brawl, and then finally got around to penning his take like two weeks after the fact. As soon as the Pistons-Pacers brawl happened, he exploded with a column about how the players would need a cage - to protect them from the fans. Yep, those crazy fans, like the ones who got punched for being in the wrong place at the wrong time by Artest and Jackson.

You see, that instance fit Rhoden's views, his takes, even though he was incorrect. The Knicks-Nuggets brawl didn't fit his perceptions as well, so he didn't feel the need to write about it straight away. Weak. Very weak. Also very predictable.

And that's why Rhoden is Rhoden and Wiley was Wiley.

henryhecht - To put it simply, you don't know what you're talking about regarding the history of what you speak, and it's not my job to educate you. Malcolm did, in fact, have an 'epiphany;' that's exactly what happened. That's not an oversimplification, it is, rather, a description. Go read his autobiography, or check with your T.A.

Rhoden and Wiley were contemporaries, yet their worldviews diverged enormously. Do you want to explain to me the 'political roots' of that divergence? 'Cause I'm all ears. Try not to make it too 'simplistic.'

Scoop and Whitlock are not too far apart in age, although Scoop is younger, I believe, and I have written to Scoop saying essentially "Hey, you're a young guy, you know, maybe you just need to grow into what Wiley became, give it time." Do I think that will happen? I hope it does. But Rhoden has no excuse, he's been around long enough to know what he's doing. Wiley has detailed some of his racist encounters from his youth, and Wiley was an angry guy, as he has said. But he overcame that anger, like Malcolm did. I'm not saying he forgot it, but he overcame it. And that let him see things differently as he aged. It's not fair that he - or anyone else - has to overcome what he dealt with, but the point is, he did. Life isn't fair, as we all know.

Rhoden just chooses, for whatever personal, political, etc. reasons, not to do what Wiley did. Maybe it's a difference in capacity, I don't know. I have no idea. I'm just telling you what I read from them both - what I know about them both - and it is vastly different.

William Rhoden seems like a genuinely good man. I have no personal animosity towards him whatsoever. None. I hope his new book sells well, and he lives a good life.

But he's no Ralph Wiley.

And that was my point, I just tried to flesh it out a little bit with what I see as their differences, by use of analogy. If that's oversimplistic, forgive me. That's all I could come up with.

Happy New Year, all.

 

ignore political context at your own peril. in 1964, when malcolm made his hajj, he believed that islam could unite the world and cut across racial divides. post 9/11 nobody believes that. go back and look at malcolm's african schedule in 1964 - it was entirely political. no way his epiphany was "spiritual" - it just doesn't fit with who he was and what he was involved in.

i don't disagree with your point about wiley and rhoden - i'd have to give them a closer read to be sure - but my bullshit meter goes off when is see analogies lifted out of context. if you are saying that rhoden is stubbornly militant, while wiley became moderate - then just say that. both positions have historical and cultural justifications. same with scoop and whitlock. they have a different voice, and a different political orientation - who's to say which is right? as a white guy, i'm hesitant to pass judgment on black writers. too much history. too much pain.

 

How can you read a column and not pass judgement ?

 

i don't mind judging a column. just not the writers.

 

The slant that Bill Rhoden's columns almost always take force you to pass judegement on the writer.

 

HH obsession with politics is ridiculous. First I'm a Republican, and now he's claiming Malcolm's epiphany was political. He's a one-note idiot.

 

didn't know you felt so strongly about malcolm's epiphany.

 

Yes, Rhoden is predictable. How many columnists aren't? Now we even have a certain breed of sports columnist that is predictable because, in an effort to appear unpredictable, you know there is going to be a bizarre effort to take an unconventional stance. What's wrong with that? Well, if you read them regularly, you start to wonder if they have any convictions at all because it all seems to be about nothing more than stirring the pot that day. At least with Rhoden, it's a safe bet that he at least believes in what he's saying, even if he does get a bit repetitious. He's not for everyone, but the NYT has a slew of sports columnists so we easily can ignore those who don't float our boat. I like their sports section, but with the exception of Selena, none of their sports columnists do much for me -- and with Selena, the extent of my interest is that I get my shallow jollies from some of the words she uses.

 

I would like to think so, but I find it hard to believe that Rhoden actually believes some of the stuff he writes.

 

I'm not TOUCHING the McNabb column, because the agenda/subtext is so obvious it simply drives one
to laughter, given current circumstances . . .